[Advaita-l] MEAN MENTALITY OF NARAYANA PANDITHACHARYA, WHO WROTE SUMADHVA VIJAYA

[V Subrahmanian]

The objective of the Mani Manjari is to market the product, dvaita
philosophy, that is purported to be opposed to Advaita.  The strategy
adopted is to show the Advaita Acharya in poor light and thereby gain
clientele for their product which has no other content to appeal to the
learned and the laity.

Quoted below is an excerpt from Swami Maheshananda Giri's introduction to
the Chandogya Upanishad Bhashya, edited and published by Mahesh Research
Institute, Varanasi, 1982:

// We have been studying the different commentators, such as Srikantha,
Ramanuja, Vallabha, Nimbarka, Baladeva, Srikara, Madhva and the moderners,
for over fifty years now. We have seen that apart from the criticism of the
Advaita-view, there is little more in the content of their traditional view
that is not found in Shankara, or is not just a logical corollary of what
he has said. It is our challenge that apart from logic-chipping, not a
single spiritual fibre, which has not been either supported or contradicted
by Shankara, can be shown in the works of these commentators. All the
statements of the other commentators about God, are melted down in the
crucible of the concept of Saguna Brahman of Shankara. The concept of
Brahman of Srikantha and Ramanuja is practically identical with Shankara's
concept of Ishwara, and they rarely try to contradict it. Similarly,
Shankara's concept of Virat or Sutratman takes care of Madhva, Vallabha and
others. Thus, what they contradict, is the range outside their vision. Had
they been true traditionalists, they would have presented different facets
of the same Truth which Shankara had presented. When it comes to present a
positive aspect of the spiritual Being, they have little to say, though
they roar to assert what it is not. This gives the lie to their having
received a different unbroken tradition. ......but the traditionalist that
Shankara was, he never criticised or disowned the views of Virat,
Hiranyagarbha or Ishwara. He rather developed complete harmony between
them. Thus, without any fear of contradiction, we can say that Shankara's
is THE Hindu tradition. //

subrahmanian.v

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:31 AM, RAMESH RAMANAN via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Dear Sri Srivathsa Rao and other members,
> Pranams,
> I had high regards for Sri Adi Shankara, as just another scholar or
> so-called incarnation, before reading this book and now, my bhakti to Him
> as the Lord Shiva Himself has taken deeper root in my heart. The entire
> text below is takenfrom Pages 19-22 of Sparks from a Divine Anvil by Sri
> JnananandaBharathi Swami, a very close disciple of His Holiness Sri
> ChandrashekaraBharathi Mahaswaminah. A gentleman high placed in lieonce
> expressed to His Holiness, his delight at seeing Sringeri. G (name of the
> devotee isabbreviated): What a glorious sight! Such a spot nestling in the
> heart ofthe woods and hills! How pure and sparkling are the waters of the
> River Tunga!In these days of railways and motor cars, we somehow manage to
> come here toenjoy the beauty of this lovely spot. In the days of Sri
> Sankaracharya, therewere no such facilities. He walked throughout the
> country only on foot. How didHe find out that such a beautiful spot was
> just here? When I think of it, I amlost in wonder and admiration of
> Him. H.H.(Sri ChandrashekaraBharathi Mahaswaminah): Does the Creator of the
> world need any process ofsearching for finding out the objects of His own
> creation? Does he not know asa matter of course where everything is, for He
> Himself, placed it there? Thereis nothing at all, therefore, to be wondered
> at in the great Acharya choosingthis place as an ideal one, unless you
> forget that He was the Lord Himselfincarnate and unless you consider Him
> just such a human being as we ourselvesare. It is only in the latter view
> that any wonder or admiration can arise atany of His actions. On another
> occasion, at a meetingof scholars, a Pandit/scholar tried to improve upon
> Sri Shankara’s Bhasya onthe Brahma Sutras, by adding one of his own
> argument to substantiate theproposition by Sri Shankara, which was being
> sought to be established in thegathering. Sri Chandrashekara
> BharathiSwaminah Is this argument found in the Bhasya of our Acharya?
> Pandit: It is not.  Sri Chandrashekara BharathiMahaswami: Then why are you
> advancing it? Pandit: It is only anadditional argument, which will support
> and strengthen the case. Sri Chandrashekara BharathiMahaswami: Evidently,
> you think that our Acharya has failed to state it. Pandit: He might
> haveincluded this also.  Sri Chandrashekara BharathiMahaswami: Is it not
> really, “He ought to have included this?”Pandit: I did not say so.  Sri
> Chandrashekara BharathiMahaswami: Certainly not in so many words. But you
> certainly think that theBhasya would have looked better and been more
> complete if this argument hadbeen included.Pandit: I thought so.  Sri
> Chandrashekara BharathiMahaswami: That is by advancing this argument, you
> sought to improve theBhasya?Pandit: No. No. It wouldhave been impertinent
> on my part, if I had sought to do anything of that sort.  Sri
> Chandrashekara BharathiMahaswami: All the same, the ideas was at the back
> of your mind quiteunconsciously; otherwise, you would not have advanced a
> fresh argument. Pandit: I am sorry that Idid so, if it gives rise to such
> an impression. Sri Chandrashekara BharathiMahaswami: Sorry or not, you have
> put forward that argument. We shall seehow far it is tenable/justifiable.
> His Holiness then proceeded toanalyze that argument and demonstrate that it
> was not only irrelevant andfallacious, but it was itself destructive of the
> proposition, which was to be laiddown in the context. The Pandit realized
> his mistake keenly. Pandit: I am very sorrythat I advanced that argument. I
> see now that it is quite untenable.  Sri Chandrashekara BharathiMahaswami:
> Please do not think that my demonstration was intended toextract from you
> an expression of regret or to show off my own dialecticalskill. My only
> object was to eradicate from your mind, the slightest suspicionthat the
> All-knowing incarnate as our Acharya could have erred in anyparticular or
> omitted to mention any relevant matter. When we forget who Hereally was,
> there is naturally a temptation to ‘improve’ on Him, for, in ourview, He
> was just a learned Pandit, like ourselves. You must give you that
> ideaaltogether.
>
> My observations:  When such a realized Sage as Sri Chandrashekara Bharathi
> says in such emphatic language, do we need to get certificates of
> authenticity from Sri Madhwa or anyone else for OUR LORD Sri Shankara? We
> need not bother about the language or words used by them to describe Sri
> Shankara. A flower in the hands of a devotee becomes a garland for the
> Lord, a flower in the hands of a monkey gets squeezed and smashed. Language
> is a tool which can be used either positively or negatively. People who do
> not subscribe to our views, try to condemn us and belittle our views. That
> is their approach and their limited thinking. We need not bother ourselves
> with all such garbage.
>
> Hope, Srivathsa Rao gets some peace of mind after reading this. I would
> suggest that we all read books containing instructions by Sri
> Chandrashekara Bharathi Mahaswami or other such advaitic sages and not get
> ourselves bogged down by such garbage.  Life is short and we must make the
> most optimum use of this rarely available human life in spiritual pursuit
> to realIze and abide in our natural state, rather than disputing garbage.
> Ramesh Ramanan.
>
>
>      On Thursday, 12 February 2015, 11:06, RAMESH RAMANAN <
> rameshramanan at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>  Dear Sri Srivathsa Rao,
> Pranams,
> Do not get agitated by all this scrap. Why should we endorse the stand of
> the Vishishtadvaiti or Dvaithis? We do know for sure that Sri Shankara was
> an embodiment of Lord Shiva Himself. Why should we bother our heds with
> unwanted garbage from these so-called writers or theologians? Students of
> Advaita should try to establish themselves in their natural state and abide
> therein without any straying, as that alone is our real bliss. Even if a
> billion books are authored to establish Advaita beyond the least shadow of
> doubt, the doubting Thomases will continue to heap doubt upon doubt without
> even any fundamental basis to their arguments. You can wake up some one who
> is sleeping, but it is almost impossible to wake up one who is pretending
> to be asleep. Sri Adi Shankara does not need any certificate of
> authenticity or glory from Sri Madhva or Narayana Panditacharya. Hope you
> understand this. Ramesh Ramanan.
>
>      On Wednesday, 11 February 2015, 22:07, Srivathsa Rao via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>
>  Recently I went through ,this website which is a website of manimanjari,
> a book which call adi shankara as devil....manimantha...
>
> this is a book by narayana pandithacharya,who call shankaracharya as
> devil....
> as said by madhvacharya to him....
>
> Please go through this website and tell your valuable comment...
>
> JUST GO THROUGH THE QUALITY OF LANGUANGE....
>
> EVEN MADHVACHARYA CALLS ADI SHANKARA AS DEVIL MANIMANTHA...
>
>
>
> http://srinivasa-kalyana.blogspot.in/2012/05/manimanjari-of-sri-naryana.html
>
>
> regards,
> Srivathsa Rao I
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>